Ron Gross’s Jupiter 2 Tips part 2
back to page 1
The Interior…
The desire on the part of Playing Mantis to incorporate lower level detailing as part of the overall package necessitated some modifications from the plans which I submitted. This is not a decision with which I necessarily disagree, it simply represents an alternate interpretation. There are certain definitive answers concerning the exterior of the ship if one has the specific goal of duplicating the look of the primary studio miniature. The interior, on the other hand, can be validly assessed in a number of ways depending on one’s primary area of emphasis.
The first thing you must understand is that we are trying to reconcile full-sized studio sets, which have very specific dimensions, with a longer, lower, and sleeker hull contour. Take a look at shots of the full scale studio mock up, and you will see a basic shape defined by all straight lines and a “tighter” circle to denote the roof edge. Add to this disparity the fact that the interior sets were actually situated below the seam line between the two primary hulls, which will not work if you expect the lower level viewport to make any sense. We are left with the need to raise the floor to at least the point of the seam line, and to widen the interior circle defined by the ends of the wall beams. If the interior layout is not widened, the distance between the viewport and the flight deck console becomes unacceptably large. Examine the illustration that I did for the box cover, for example, and you will notice that side of the bordering wall beam is already quite a bit wider than that of the studio set. To stretch it much farther would not create an acceptable overall look.
Having accepted all of the above, we are now left with individual wall sections which have different (essentially lower) proportions compared with their full scale counterparts. The solution is to duplicate as much of the original detail as possible, but to spread out and/ or “stretch” specific areas as required in order to fill the space. The most logical reference for scale is that of an internal hatchway, which, by necessity, now has a lower dimension. This is how my alternate scale of 1/60th as described in the assembly manual was ultimately derived.
What, then, are the differences between the Polar version and my original plans? As a starting point, I decided to line up the larger recessed circular area on the rooftop with the internal elevator cage. You will notice that this is not quite the case on the production model. The fact is that the circle defining the Polar internal layout is indeed a little tighter than the way I drew it, and I suspect that the main reason had to do with an attempt at lower level reconciliation. The original plan was to create an opening at the base of the ladder that would join the two levels, but it was abandoned when it became obvious that it would never line up properly. The only way to incorporate lower level detailing in this model, in fact, was simply to represent it in a smaller overall scale with an even tighter associated diameter. If you decide to build the lower level and include the central spacer (the “mystery” part), you will notice that the floor is now raised to a point that is just above the seam line. This would ordinarily necessitate an even lower profile and a different scale, but the slightly tighter circle allows the hatchway height (and hence the overall scale) to remain the same.
It isn’t really necessary for you to understand all of this, of course, in order to build the thing. It does, however, tend to answer a lot of questions, as well as provide some interesting background information.
SUGGESTION #10 — cockpit seats
You may refer to them as love seats, park benches, or church pews… but whatever, those god-awful cockpit seats have got to go. Simply take a small hobby saw and remove them. Unsightly holes in the flooring will be a temporary result, which will require puttying and fine-sanding. Consider creating a temporary support base for the putty with vinyl tape applied to the underside of the assembly. If you prefer not to eliminate the seats altogether, at least cut them down to an acceptable size, which is about 60% of what is provided. Please understand that this part of the model was designed strictly with a parts-count, cost-reduction consideration in mind. Excellent replacement seats can be obtained from Skyhook Models, for which there is a link on this site.
Suggestion #11 — computer height
The computer decks on top of the flight deck area should be at a certain height in order to create the proper overall look from the outside of the ship. If you employ the lower level detailing and the deck spacer as provided, the result will be automatically correct. Please note that the profile of the flight deck assembly is lower that that of the studio set because of the floor positioning with respect to the central seam line. If you forgo the lower level and the spacer in favor of building the leg wells, the flooring will wind up at a lower point, or very close to the seam line. In this case, the height of the computer decks will be too low, and will barely be visible from the exterior when viewed edge-on. Since these computer decks have a lower profile than their full-size counterparts anyway, the obvious solution is simply to remove them in the same manner as that of the seats, build up base supports from layers of plastic sheet, and reassemble each piece. More advanced modelers may want to rebuild these parts completely from scratch, and actually add the “hood” effect around the tops and sides.
Jupiter 2 lighted panels
SUGGESTION #12 — raised panel detail
The detailing provided for the radar display panels on the angled flight deck faces is somewhat general in nature. Good reference material for the proper placement of additional knobs, switches, and lights can be found in any number of fan-related publications. As with my previous suggestion involving the exterior push buttons beside the hatch, proceed to drill a variety of tiny holes into all locations where additional detailing is necessary. Fill these holes with short pieces of solid wire of necessarily varied gauges, secure from the underside, and trim the front ends to reveal only slight protrusions. These newly established tips will now be able to accept tiny dots of paint during your final phase of detailing for a very realistic look . Please note that this technique can be used throughout the entire interior wherever a somewhat generalized panel calls out for a more detailed representation.
Ron Gross lighted panel art
SUGGESTION #13 — lighted panels
As an alternative to suggestion #12, consider employing the method for detailing the flight desk that I used when I built my prototype. Using the same general reference material of your choice, create your own linear drawings of all the necessary panels, and refine the dimensions if necessary. Proceed to color them in with Prismacolor colored pencils, and try to make them look as crisp as possible. Even if you are not an accomplished artist, your chances of success with this technique are still quite good. Photo-reduction will now be necessary, and there is a tendency for little flaws to seemingly disappear as this is done. Proceed to take your creation to a local service which can handle this type of color reduction, and carefully calculate what it will take to get “from point A to point B.” Generate your final color reduction onto clear acetate, and have duplicate copies made. You have just created the means to implement a dramatic back-lighting effect. Proceed to purge the existing panels as they are currently defined with a small saw and file, and replace these rectangular areas with your new creations after affixing them to trimmed pieces of .01″ plastic sheet. Scotch double-stick tape works fine for applying these backings, which should adequately diffuse the light from a single internal incandescent source. If the effect looks a bit “washed out,” laminate duplicate copies of the transparencies together with the same double-stick tape, which will increase the color density.
Be aware, of course, that the techniques described in nos. 12 and 13 can be mixed throughout different areas of the interior to add interest and diversity.
SUGGESTION #14 — freezing tubes
I regret to report that the freezing tubes included with this model were not scaled up to proper dimensions from my original drawings, which are 1-1 for my prototype. These drawings were originally prepared for my own use at a time when I intended to scratch build the entire interior as well. This is not necessarily a big problem, as the overall look is still quite satisfying. An issue arises if the modeler should decide to build the sub-ceiling above the angled stasis computers which is not included with this kit. Since the sub-ceiling must equal the height of the other walls, the tubes will wind up being about 1/8″ short. The obvious solution is to find clear tubular sections which can be cut to proper size to substitute for the ones supplied. If you go this route, consider removing the top portions of the supplied tubes and reattaching them to your new assemblies, as the accuracy in this area is really quite good. The end result of this operation, of course, will be tubes that reach the correct height, but which are still slightly narrow. To effect further correction would necessitate major modifications including the base moldings attached to the floor, and are probably best left alone.
SUGGESTION #15 — static discharge tubes
The static discharge tubes situated amidst the freezing tubes are not included with this model. Simply secure some 1/8″ clear lucite rod from your local hobby store, and cut three pieces to the proper size. The layered top and base structures of each assembly can be constructed by simply combining appropriately trimmed cross sections of plastic rod.
SUGGESTION #16 — elevator cage
The elevator cage included with this model is the result of another cost effective tooling decision. I suggest that you rebuild this part completely from scratch. The preferred technique involves creating individual sections of the cage from 18 gauge wire, and securing them to vertical support pieces with cyanoacryate (super glue). Have acetone solvent and cotton swabs within reach to eliminate any excess adhesive as you proceed. Before you arrive at this point, however, you must insure the overall shape and symmetry of the individual sections. A 3-D template will be required around which to wind the wire, and there is no better choice than the actual clear elevator part that comes with the kit. Make several tight windings, then slip the plastic guide away. Take a small pair of wire cutters and separate the multiple-rung coil into individual circular sections. Fine-shape these sections as required, and proceed with the assembly described above. Upon completion of the structure, you will have the opportunity to clip out the frontal section which should be open, thereby duplicating the look of the original elevator cage to a very high degree. To get an idea of the effectiveness of this technique, take a look at my mini scratch built chariot on the Priplanus web site. Virtually all of the red support parts were done in this manner, which include the ladder rungs, the luggage rack, and the fore and aft bumpers. The front headlights on this little model are simply the tips of clear LED’s which are surrounded by the same type of small circular wire sections.
SUGGESTION #17 — beam placement
The general arrangement of the internal appointments (in terms of placement in degrees) does not precisely match that of my original blueprint layout. Remember that the interpretation of the interior in general is somewhat subjective in nature, so this does not necessarily pose a serious problem. The relationship of the beam placement with respect to certain other features, however, could use a little tweaking, in my opinion. Be aware that if you take the route I am about to describe, you will commit yourself to some fairly extensive modifications which may yield comparatively small benefits.
The two beams located between the middle pairs of freezing tubes should intersect each pair equidistantly, which suggests that beam section #22 should be moved about 1/16″ to the left. Consider drilling new holes and puttying in the old ones to enable this task. Beam section #15, which borders the viewport on the left side, should be shifted slightly more to the left in like manner. If you have chosen not to include the lower deck detailing and your floor is situated close to the seam line, you will have to eliminate the plastic “stop” that is molded into the lower hull section in this area so that the new beam position will be unobstructed. Since there is already a a small gap in between the beam and the console, this action will obviously aggravate it further. Consider taking a small X-acto micro-tooth hobby saw and completely removing the flight desk console from the floor. Fill in the gap with trimmed plastic sheet, putty, and smooth out this area. You now have the option to elevate the entire flight deck to a more appropriate level with the addition of a base fashioned from plastic sheet. More importantly, however, you may also now pull the entire assembly more tightly into the interior (assuming you have already eliminated the twin loveseats), and flush with the side wall beams. The distance between the console and the viewport will now be greater, but it will also be true to my original concept plans. Take a look at any of the aerial views of my prototype on the Priplanus site for confirmation. As a final touch for this section, consider fashioning a suitable “ledge” from plastic sheet to close the gap that exists behind the computer decks to the base of the viewport.
Beam section #17, which borders the main hatch to the right, could benefit from a similar repositioning. In this case, a small movement farther to the right (about 1/16″) would be appropriate. Once again, the elimination of the plastic “stop” molded onto the inside of the lower hull may be necessary for proper clearance. Be aware that some minor side trimming of the wall sections which are situated between the beams may be necessary as a result of any such beam position shifting.
SUGGESTION #18 — wall beams side
The beams as supplied have a “T-beam” cross-section structure which was not evident on the original studio set. Consider filling in the side gaps with putty, or trimmed pieces of plastic sheet. This action will be most effective when it is applied to the beams which border the flight deck console, as additional trimming of intersecting wall sections may be necessary if it is employed throughout. If you choose to fill in the flight deck beams with trimmed pieces of plastic sheet, consider extending them out past the edges of the supplied parts in order to fill in any gap which may be present between the beams and the edges of the viewport. These beams should also display additional raised areas on their side surfaces which can be fashioned from plastic sheet as well. Refer to my box cover illustration for the proper shape and proportions.
SUGGESTION #19 — wall beams ceiling
The wall beams as supplied do not extend fully upward toward the central dome, and in fact, are reminiscent of the modified third season set. I generally agree with this decision in view of the removable rooftop arrangement that this model offers, and the resulting “open” effect. Nevertheless, I realize that there will be some who wish to recreate the full look of the original studio set in this respect. If so, you will have to fashion eight individual “extensions” from plastic sheet, and several layers may have to be laminated together if you don’t have stock of adequate thickness on hand. I suggest that instead of attaching these new parts directly to the ends of each of the eight beams, that you instead secure them to the inside of the rooftop. This design will create the proper appearance when viewed from the outside, and will also preserve the “open” effect when the rooftop is removed for aerial viewing. The original design of the roof section included eight pairs of raised bars on the underside which resulted in eight equidistant grooves to enable this possibility. They were eliminated in the final production version, however, because they caused unsightly “sink lines” on the top surface. The remnants of these locations can still be seen if you look closely enough, but be careful to use them only as a guide if you have shifted any of the beam locations as suggested earlier. This solution will be most effective if the orientation of your floor is slightly higher than that of the central seam line, which will be the case automatically if you choose to include the lower deck as supplied.
On to page 3
